On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 12:11:59PM +0200, MNibble wrote: > I won't say you are wrong, since you are right.I (please don't throw > stones or bits at me) already use css und div span and stuff like that > and if it is called xhtml that's fine for me
That isn't what is called XHTML. XHTML 1.0 is HTML 4.01 expressed in XML instead of SGML. In practise, its pointless for 99/100 cases. It has Appendix C which does a bunch of handwaving and allows you to serve XHTML with the text/html content type so that "legacy" user agents which don't understand XHTML (like Googlebot and Internet Explorer) can cope with it if you follow some additional constraints (of course Appendix C depends on browsers getting some parts of HTML wrong in the first place, and not all browsers do, so its pretty rubbish). XHTML 1.1 is XHTML 1.0 Strict with Ruby added. XHTML 2.0 isn't ready and is pretty much an entirely new language that does a similar job to HTML. In practise XHTML is far more trouble then its worth unless you have a need for mixed namespaces (if you don't know what they are, you don't need them) and should generally be avoided in favour of the better supported HTML 4.01 (the Strict variant). Using CSS for layout, HTML (or XHTML) for semantics, relationships and structure, and JavaScript for behaviour is generally lumped under the umbrella heading of "Standards based design". -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
